The Delhi High Court has said it will examine whether suits seeking protection of personality rights are increasingly being used to prevent the dissemination of information relating to wrongdoing or to suppress satire, parody, and caricature under the guise of publicity rights.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani made the observation while hearing a suit filed by Alakh Pandey, the founder of PhysicsWallah, seeking protection of his personality rights. The Bench noted that Pandey’s claim in the suit may be overly broad and emphasised that the court’s duty is to ensure such cases are not misused to obtain takedown orders for legally permissible expressions.
Citing an earlier decision of a Coordinate Bench in DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs. Baby Gift House and Others, Justice Bhambhani stated that the court would want to examine and ensure that personality rights are not deployed to prevent the dissemination of information in relation to wrongdoing or to extinguish an entire genre of expression, including caricature, lampooning, or parody, which may not amount to commercial exploitation of an individual’s personality or publicity rights.
In the interim order passed on August 5, the Court directed that takedown actions be limited to three specific categories of violations: websites and social media content flagged as obscene, derogatory, and involving unauthorised commercial use or impersonation of Pandey’s personality traits. The Court also issued summons to the defendants accused of uploading objectionable content and sought their responses.
Furthermore, the Court directed Google, Telegram, X (formerly Twitter), and Automatic Inc to share the basic subscriber information (BSI) of individuals behind websites flagged for hosting objectionable content. It granted liberty to Pandey to approach the concerned intermediaries if he comes across any other allegedly infringing website.
Upon such intimation, intermediaries, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), or Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) are required to technically verify whether the complained website is indeed a mirror, alphanumeric, or redirect version of the defendant websites against whom an injunction order has already been passed by the Court.
The Court clarified that the role of ISPs and DNRs is limited solely to the technical verification of the claim and does not extend to discretionary decisions about blocking a website. It added that if the websites highlighted in the plea are found to be rogue, the concerned ISPs and DNRs are required to enforce the ex parte ad-interim injunction granted in the order.
The Court further stated that it does not discern any real risk that the plaintiff would misuse the direction granted by this order.
Pandey was represented by Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, who highlighted instances of obscene and derogatory content, including Telegram stickers made from Pandey’s face being sold commercially. He argued that such content, as an educator, had the potential to undermine Pandey’s standing in the eyes of students and contained sexually demeaning portrayals, abusive language, and unauthorised commercial exploitation.
Deepak also referred to instances of impersonation on a Telegram channel titled ‘Alakh Sir lectures’ and the existence of fake social media accounts in Pandey’s name. A parody and satirical video on Pandey was played in court, but after viewing the clip, the Court refused to pass a takedown order for that specific video.
Advocates Aditya Gupta, Vani Kaushik, and Sunidhi Agrahari appeared for Google, while Standing Counsel Maitreyee Jagat Joshi and Manisha Agrawal Na appeared for other respondents.